An Experimental Study of the Impact of Teachers' Expectations and Pressure on the Skill of Speaking English as a Foreign Language of Elementary Students in Aseer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experimental study, conducted over ten classroom sessions, examined the influence of teachers' expectations and pressure on the speaking abilities of EFL elementary students in Aseer, Saudi Arabia. It aimed to explore the relationship between teacher expectations, pressure, and students' speaking skill development and to provide practical strategies for managing pressure while enhancing speaking abilities. The study employed a quantitative research design, incorporating pre- and post-tests to assess students' speaking skills and a questionnaire survey to collect data on teacher expectations and pressure. The study included 32 elementary students, divided into a control group (n=17) and an experimental group (n=15), as well as 107 EFL teachers from various schools in Aseer. The results indicated that teachers' realistic expectations and reasonable pressure significantly improved students' speaking skills, particularly in pronunciation, grammar, and fluency. However, vocabulary skills did not show significant improvement under reasonable pressure. EFL teachers in Aseer held high expectations for their students' speaking proficiency and applied moderate pressure to enhance performance. Differentiated instruction, constructive feedback, and hands-on learning strategies effectively managed pressure and enhanced speaking skills. The study emphasizes balancing teacher expectations and pressure to improve students' speaking skills. It recommends that teachers maintain realistic expectations, clearly communicate them to students, and implement strategies such as differentiated instruction and constructive feedback. Further research could explore the long-term effects of teacher expectations and pressure on overall language proficiency and examine additional factors influencing vocabulary development in this context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".